October 2001
Volume 53, Number 5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
October 2001 |
Volume 53, Number 5 |
» Spring 2001
» About
MONTHLY REVIEW’S September 2001
July-August 2001 June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001 February
2001 January 2001 December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
July-August 2000 Back
Issues
[ V.52 ]
AN
INTERVIEW WITH: |
c o n t e n t s » REVIEW
OF THE MONTH In a 1963 talk on “The Pollution of Our Environment” Rachel Carson drew a close comparison between the reluctance of society in the late twentieth century to embrace the full implications of ecological theory and the resistance in the Victorian era to Darwin’s theory of evolution . . . Israel’s Religious Right I live in Tel Aviv near a small river. Over the river there is a bridge. Under the bridge someone (a left–wing youngster, I would guess) painted a graffito in black which reads: “After we finish making peace with the Arabs—we’ll finish with the religious!” That was several years ago, when the Oslo process was on the agenda, Rabin was alive, and peace seemed around the corner. Much bloodied water has flowed under the bridge since then: Rabin was assassinated, Oslo has come and gone, and peace is as illusive as the Jewish Messiah. Palestinian Geography and the Peace
Process: A Cartographic Addendum These maps add a graphic dimension that will help readers understand just what has, and has not, gone on in the Middle East peace process. In the years since the Oslo process began in 1993, Israel has claimed to adhere to a “land for peace” principle, asserting, in effect, that in return for secure national borders it would relinquish control over the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Implicit was the idea that in those territories a Palestinian state would be established. Remembering Nora
Sayre What follows is a chapter from Nora Sayre’s Running Time: Films of The Cold War (The Dial Press, 1982). We reprint it here not only to mark the untimely death of its author on August 8, but because it is a good example of a kind of radical cultural analysis distinguished by incisiveness as well as clarity, and, unfortunately, not often seen. In this selection, Sayre not only provides a critical examination of films that resisted the post-blacklist conformity of Hollywood, but she places them in the context of both larger social and historical forces, and the evolving corporate pressures of the movie business. Unglaring Exceptions While the largest American audiences of 1954 watched James Stewart studying his neighbors in Rear Window, or Joan Crawford and Mercedes McCambridge shooting it out in Johnny Guitar, or Victor Mature fondling Susan Hayward in Demetrius and the Gladiators, while many savored the inspired lunacies of Beat the Devil, there was one film that most were protected from seeing. Salt of the Earth, made independently by blacklisted writers—directed by Herbert Biberman of the Hollywood Ten, written by Michael Wilson, and produced by Paul Jarrico—was presented by the International Union of Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers, which had been expelled from the CIO in 1950 on charges of Communist domination. The movie was beleaguered from its inception. Filmed in Silver City, New Mexico, Salt of the Earth was based on the 1951-1952 strike by the Mexican-American zinc miners of Mine-Mill, who had demanded equality with their Anglo colleagues, as well as safety regulations on the job. CORRESPONDENCE Different
Strategies Are Necessary Now Barbara Epstein’s answer to “What Happened to the Women’s Movement?” (Monthly Review, May 2001) explains much of the decline of the intense, exciting, radical and socialist feminist organizing of the 1960s and 1970s, with its visions of societal transformation and women’s emancipation. However, I think that she underemphasizes, or even ignores, some important parts of a comprehensive answer. These have to do with the daunting reality facing revolutionary visions, the strength of opposition to women’s equality with men, and changes in economic and political relations that now seem to require new visions and ways of organizing. The Broader
Picture I take it as given that in publishing this piece Barbara Epstein sought to stir up controversy. I take it also that her effort seeks to revive feminism, rather than to bury it. And I agree with her notion that the situation of the women’s movement should be a subject for critical analysis. But I am surprised that such an acute observer of social movements should paint a picture so isolated from the larger political and economic context. In this response I will try to add some pieces of the broader picture. Response to Acker
and Eisenstein I’m very pleased that Joan Acker and Hester Eisenstein have responded to my article. Since the questions that they raise overlap, I will address their responses together. I think that the questions they have raised are important for a discussion not only of the current state of the women’s movement, but more broadly, of the current state of progressive politics in the United States. I want to thank them for having taken the discussion that I started further. BOOK
REVIEWS |
f e a t u r e d
f e a t u r e d
f e a t u r e d
f e a t u r e d
f e a t u r e d
f e a t u r e d
f e a t u r e d L I N K S :
|
||
 |
||||
About the Editors: Paul M. Sweezy · Harry Magdoff If you have any questions or comments |
||||
 |
||||
| | Top | About MR | Subscribe | Order Single Issue | Back Issues| MR Index | MR Press | |
||||
All material © copyright 2000 by Monthly Review |
||||
